- 15 -
The estate is not attempting to alter the unambiguous terms
of the marital settlement and thus avoid the tax consequences
which flow from it. Rather, the estate introduced the testimony
of three witnesses with personal knowledge of the marital
settlement in order to show that the parties intended the
guaranty obligation of Mr. Hoffman to be personal to decedent
only and to terminate upon the death of either party. For
purposes of this case, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the
terms of the marital settlement, the guaranty obligation of Mr.
Hoffman terminated on the death of decedent.
Mr. Hoffman testified that the guaranteed payments were tied
to alimony and that he did not intend for the guaranty obligation
to survive decedent’s death. He stated that the guaranty
provision was inserted into the marital settlement because he did
not have enough cash up front to pay the amount of alimony that
decedent wanted; thus, the parties to the marital settlement
negotiated lower monthly alimony payments in the initial years
after the divorce in return for larger payments of cash in future
years. Mr. Hoffman testified that on the date the final
guaranteed payment was due, decedent would presumably have been
able to sell the SCC and WLI stock and liquidate her holdings,
thereby meeting her financial needs. Mr. Hoffman testified that
he had not made any payments pursuant to the guaranty obligation
because he believed the guaranty obligation ceased at decedent’s
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011